OGH 6 Ob 229/21a (OGH): Status, Rulings and What It Means for Players

What this case is about

OGH 6 Ob 229/21a is a decision of the Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria's Supreme Court, under docket 6 Ob 229/21a, dated 2 February 2022. An Austrian player sued T* Limited (Malta), which ran online poker and casino through p*.eu, over net poker losses of EUR 16,879.28 (10 February 2007 to 1 July 2019).

The player's theory sits in the line covered by Online Casino Refund Litigation in Germany and Austria.

The claims rest on § 879 Abs. 1 ABGB read with §§ 3, 12a and 14 GSpG (nullity of the contract), restitution by analogy to § 877 ABGB and § 1431 ABGB, and damages with the GSpG as a protective statute.

Who is covered

This is a single-player case, not a class action. The plaintiff is one Austrian player, and the period at issue runs from 10 February 2007 to 1 July 2019.

The ruling affects other Austrian players as a precedent, because the record calls it the standard citation for the Austrian line. See Gambling Lawsuits in Austria for the other Austrian cases.

Is there a payout?

No payout exists for other players in this case. The record shows a judgment in one player's favor for net losses of EUR 16,879.28, not a settlement fund, a claim form or an administrator.

Whether any other player recovers money depends on that player's own claim and the court that hears it. GamblingLawsuits.org is not a law firm and not a claims administrator.

What the court decided

The LG ZRS Wien granted the claim on 6 July 2021 (8 Cg 50/20m), and the OLG Wien granted it on 13 October 2021 (15 R 121/21f). On 2 February 2022 the OGH dismissed the Revision.

The OGH held that the pre-2011 seat requirement was incompatible with EU law but severable, and that the Placanica line does not carry over to civil nullity. It also held that the operator is the recipient of the stakes even for poker rake, so the contract is void under § 879 Abs. 1 ABGB.

Restitution follows by analogy to § 877 ABGB regardless of what the player knew, because the GSpG protects players. A parallel tort claim carries a reversed burden of proof on hypothetical losses.

As of 14 November 2026 the status is judgment. The operator is covered on the T* Limited (Malta) Lawsuits page; press describes it as the PokerStars operator, which the court record does not state.

Why it matters

The record lists this decision as the standard citation for the Austrian line on void online gambling contracts and the restitution of losses. It was decided at the OGH, the court of last instance in the record.

Players weighing a claim can compare what courts in several countries ordered in Can You Get Gambling Losses Back? One decided Austrian matter is not a guarantee for any other claim.

Questions people ask

How much did the player lose?

The record shows net poker losses of EUR 16,879.28 between 10 February 2007 and 1 July 2019. That is the amount at issue in the OGH decision of 2 February 2022 (6 Ob 229/21a).

Does the player's knowledge of the illegality matter?

No. The OGH held that restitution by analogy to § 877 ABGB applies regardless of the player's knowledge, because the GSpG exists to protect players.

Which courts decided the case?

Three levels decided it: the LG ZRS Wien (6 July 2021), the OLG Wien (13 October 2021) and the OGH (2 February 2022).